did I get up and start downstairs?
That I was told how to reconcile
Progressive Creationism with Gap Creationism.
Matthew 19:26
Jesus looked at them and said,
“With man this is impossible,
but with God all things are possible.
In yesterdays notes Missler said:
"But when you encounter something that violates a rule you've learned, one of the possibilities is that you've encountered a dimension that you didn't know existed...and It happens to include an insight that gets around many of the problems we encounter."
Dr. Gerald Schroeder 's view of the creation as explained by Chuck Missler:
"His stretch factor, he takes the stretch factor, 10 to the 12th, he makes an interesting observation. The 16 billion years times 365 means there are 6 times 10 to the 12th days, right? So if you divide 6 to the 12th days by the expansion factor, 6 to the 12th, you get an expansion factor of about 16 billion years from the day 1 through the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth day."
"So as a physicist, he has no problem with the idea of the 16 billion years, because his point of view is that a clock on the earth and a clock at the perimeter, if I can put it that way, of the expansion are going to differ by 10 to the 12th. And if you take the present age of the universe and divide the expansion factor you get, guess what, 6 days. Which is what the Bible said all along. So that's his perception of the thing which I think is kind of interesting."
So its both.
It depends on where you are,
your perspective of it
when you are observing it.
(I brought this up in a message
I gave once a few years back.
Promise I did.)
"But Drew come on dude thats just nuts."
Yeah?
Well check this out.
Naval academy graduate
Masters Degree in engineering UCLA
strong aerospace background etc.
Commentary on Genesis
Session 1.
49:49 - 53:46
So we want to talk a little bit about this peculiar dimension that you and I are in called time, the nature of time. Time, it turns out, well let's talk about this first of all. There are atomic clocks located at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Boulder, Colorado, and also an identical clock at the Royal Observatory in Greenwich, England. These are atomic clocks. They're accurate. Both of these are accurate to better than 1 second per million years. So they're as accurate as we know how to make clocks. They're based on the natural resonance of cesium. I won't get into all that.
(My buddy gonna love that lol.)
That's not important. They're just very, very accurate clocks. But here's the dilemma. The 1 at Boulder ticks 5 microseconds a year faster than the identical clock at Greenwich. Every year, they have to make an adjustment. Why? Which one's correct, Greenwich or Boulder? The Brits or our federal government? I didn't mean anything by that. That's all right. The answer is they both are correct. You see, both are.
The clock at Colorado is at 5,400 feet altitude, and Greenwich, England is at 80 feet of altitude. And the gravity is different at both places, which means the time is not the clock problem. The time itself is different at each place. The atomic clocks, if I had an atomic clock here on the platform and I raised it 1 meter, it would speed up by 1 part in 10 to the 16th.
Not a big deal, but it's measurable, predictable, and confirmable. In fact, they actually did this with an aircraft experiment. Back in 1971, they put an atomic clock on a plane going around the world eastward. And compared to 1 at the observatory, it lost 0.059 microseconds, or 59 nanoseconds. They did the same thing with 1 going westward around the world, and it gained 273 nanoseconds. Not a big deal, but it was exactly what the mathematicians had predicted because of all the factors involved, the motions and the gravity and so forth.
I'll give you another example. This one's, I think, kind of fun. If you read a textbook in physics on this subject, you'll discover that they'll usually talk about these 2 imaginary hypothetical astronauts. They're both born at the same instant. And we're going to send 1 of them to the nearest star. The nearest star to us happens to be Alpha Centauri.
It's about roughly 4 and 1 1 1 light years away.
(Not all of the transcript comes through accurately, damn AI lol)
If you look at the night sky, there actually is a star called Alpha Centauri. And that's the nearest 1 to us. And it is about 4 and 1 1 1 light years away. We're going to send 1 of these guys, leave 1 here with us, we're going to send 1 of them to that star and back. Now, we're going to send them there at half the speed of light. This is obviously theoretical. And so that means that here on the Earth, it's going to take him, since 4 and 1 1 half light years, it's going to half the speed of light. It'll take him 9 years to get there, 9 years to come back. So he'll return in 18 years. Are we together so far? OK.
But what time is it on his clock? He's got a wristwatch around his wrist. What is it? Tally. You can tell this by the Lorentz transformations, this won't bore you through, but there is a correction factor. It turns out when he gets back, he'll be only 15 years and 7 months. In other words, he'll return 2 years and 5 months younger than his twin brother. And if that doesn't bother you, you weren't listening carefully."
2 identical astronauts. 1 goes on the trip, 1 doesn't. The guy that gets back is younger than his twin? Man, that's interesting."
So yeah.
Gods perspective?
Six days.
Our perspective?
13.8 billion years.
As demostarted
It depends on your perspective
of what you are observing.
"But when you encounter something that violates a rule you've learned, one of the possibilities is that you've encountered a dimension that you didn't know existed...and It happens to include an insight that gets around many of the problems we encounter."
Progressive Creationism just got reconciled with Gap Creationism in my book.
Thx Dr Schroeder.
No comments:
Post a Comment